MovieChat Forums > Mynvosa > Replies
Mynvosa's Replies
I’m sorry that this movie was ruined for you and I hope you can have a better viewing experience in the future. But… while this may not be your version of the <i>The Room</i> or <i>The Rocky Horror Picture Show </i> for a lot of people it is, and humour can vary a lot from person to person. When I think of 80s/90s cheese that audience will still engage with seriously, I think of <i> Road House</i>, <i>The Lost Boys, Dirty Dancing</i> or <i>Big Trouble Little China</i>. When I think of the type of viewing experience you’re describing, I think of <i>Face Off</i>. And since you acknowledge that this has never happened in any other screening you’ve been too, then maybe all of the GenZers didn’t suddenly become entitled for this one movie. They were just behaving in accordance with many peoples expectations.
We’d already seen a very fake looking body by that point in the film, so I was well aware of what I was in for by the time the dummy priest death happened. For me, the fake-ness of it just adds to the fun which is Italian horror/exploitation films.
I’ve never seen anything else by this director, but if you have other recommendations from his filmography I’d be interested to hear them.
Who doesn’t love a good manly frolic? 😂 In a world of sequels, prequel and remakes, this is the one we definitely needed a long time ago.
I did when I was 13. Then I rewatched it 20 or so and… <i>oof</i>. Did not age well. My humour had changed.
You're on the right track. From memory, that's hinted at in at least 2 scenes.
I originally wrote this on another board, but it applies to yours also and I don't want to reword my very extensive and fervent opinions on Nolan films, so...:
<blockquote>Nolan's entire approach to filmmaking is centered around making his audience feel special and intelligent. He picks topics that seem complex on the surface - [...] which, when well explained, are surprisingly simple. But as his scripts overly convolute the topic only to then overexplain it in long, unfocused exposition dumps, they're are given the illusion of depth precisely because they feel like a lecture.
He insists on presenting himself as a cinema purist. Refusing to mix sound for anything less than top-tier speakers might seem like a commitment to quality, but really it's just a technical failing. Great sound sounds amazing on any system. It's an aesthetic choice to appeal to the film bros with a slightly pretentious streak who want to feel that they're getting something no one else will give them, even if what they're getting is worse.
Nolan references to deep philosophy without actually diving into much depth. Quoting a line from the Bhagavad Gita might sound profound, but it's just surface-level intellectualism. He's giving his audience a taste of something profound without actually having to deliver on profundity. It simply isn't needed. Even if the audience isn't familiar with whatever philosophy he's espousing, they know from the surrounding culture that it's important. </blockquote>
In short, Oppenheimer won best picture because Nolan panders to his audience's egos, which includes many academy voters. Once your audience believes that they're the most special, smartest guy on the planet, you don't need to make anything good. If the script is scatterbrained, design uninspired, pace meandering - it's just because they're smart enough to <i> see his vision, man</i> and anyone who would hold his films to object standards of quality is <i> just too stupid to get it. </i>
Short Answer: No.
<blockquote>Don't know if it's normal, but I was very sorry for him. </blockquote>
Normal? Maybe. Sympathy for shitty men is unfortunately really common.
<blockquote> In my opinion, the character of the husband represents in an exceptional way our personality of modern men and women, oppressed by works and by the looking for a person that love us, who can help us in the most difficult moments.</blockquote>
In your opinion, where in the film was this conveyed? He wanted to completely dominate her life, her style, her body. That was shown very explicitly. What about that signifies to you that he was looking for love and tenderness?
<blockquote> We can see how much he's in love with his wife.</blockquote>
When? Where? How? He was horrible to her in almost every scene they were in together.
<blockquote>In fact he made the mistake to pretend too many comforts and too much love from her, that has been the reason for their quarrelings that made his wife escape with the protagonist.</blockquote>
"Quarreling" is a mutual argument between 2 persons. Abuse is when you beat and attempt to rape your wife because she's wearing a dress you don't like. This is abuse.
<blockquote>In that evening his wife disappeared, and he was humiliated in front of her: he saw his whole life destroyed.
So he began to hate the protagonist,
In a way very common to us.</blockquote>
You left out the part where her leaving was entirely a result of his abuse. You really feel sorry for the husband because he was humiliated in front of his wife after someone had to save her from him? Really?
Nolan also has a penchant for sprinkling in references to deep philosophy without actually diving into the depths of those questions. Quoting a line from the Bhagavad Gita might <i>sound</i> profound, but it's just surface-level intellectualism. He's giving his audience a taste of something profound without actually having to deliver on profundity. It simply isn't needed. Even if the audience isn't familiar with whatever philosophy he's espousing, they know from the surrounding culture that it's an important text, idea, philosophy etc., and they'll credit his work through association. Nolan fans do all the heavy lifting, and this makes them feel smart. Nolan's genius lies more in aesthetics than substance. He creates the illusion of depth and intelligence without fully delivering on it. And apparently, that's what some audiences want.
I don't like Nolan movies. I've never liked Nolan movies. But, when I look at the current state of film, its not difficult to see why he's so popular. Over the last 15 years, audiences have been bombarded with sequels, prequels and remakes. There are only a handful of filmmakers who make original films anymore and people are dying for entertainment with some substance. Nolan doesn't give his audience that at all, but he's very good at making it seem like he does.
Nolan's entire approach to filmmaking is centered around making his audience feel special and intelligent. He picks topics that seem complex on the surface - like multilayered dream realities or intricate scientific concepts, which, when well explained, are surprisingly simple. But as his scripts overly convolute the topic only to then overexplain it in long, unfocused exposition dumps, they're are given the illusion of depth precisely because they feel like a lecture.
Then there's his insistence on presenting himself as a cinema purist. Refusing to mix sound for anything less than top-tier speakers might seem like a commitment to quality, but really it's just a technical failing. After all, shouldn't great sound sound amazing on any system? It's just an aesthetic choice to appeal to the film buffs with a slightly pretentious streak who want to feel that they're getting something no one else will give them, even if what they're getting is objectively worse.
You could hear the performances over that score? 😄
Of course. Anyone who disagrees is just <i>too stupid to understand it's appeal</i>, don't ya know? 😄
Ah, thank you. I forgot to add mumbling or unnecessarily quiet performances to my list, but yes, that's also been a common theme among Nolan films. I can only assume he instructs them to speak that way, as most of the actors in his films are quite accomplished and don't perform this way in other films.
A lot of Nolan films are like this. Meandering pace and dialogue, pretentious monologuing, poor sound mixing, a score that insists that the most important part of the movie is happening ͢f͢o͢r͢ ͢t͢h͢e͢ ͢e͢n͢t͢i͢r͢e͢ ͢r͢u͢n͢-͢t͢i͢m͢e͢. How do people keep giving him money?
A lot of movies still beat Oppenheimer. A lot.
I know its several years later and you're probably not going to read this, but the comment is just too ridiculous to pass up. Its already been mentioned several times that this movie is accurate to the real life events. What you want is for entire film production to lie about someone else's life story because for no other reason that its a Western production. AND YOU HAVE THE GALL TO CALL THE FILMMAKERS RACIST!?
I live in India, and if you do too, then you know for a fact that its impossible to film portray any part of North India without portraying poverty at some level. Even the richest areas in North India will have illegal constructions nearby. Every bridge or underpass has at least one unhoused person, and for as many unsupervised children I've seen begging at traffic stops, or outside of shopping outlets, it's a miracle that more don't go missing every year.
Australia was not involved in colonising India. At all. And After 76 years of independence you can't keep pulling the pulling the colonisation card. India now has a more unequal wealth distribution that than in era of the British Raj. It's no other nation's fault that your politicians are corrupts, that India doesn't enact fair labour laws or that as a collection of cultures, Indians have refused to establish ethical family planning practices so that there will never be enough resources to go around even if things do improve one day. And South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, Australia, New Zealand and Hong Kong were themselves colonies of other powers. Yet today they perform very well globally. If countries with the same circumstances were all able to improve upon themselves after colonization and India can't, that's India's problem. Stop with the victim complex.
<blockquote>By the way, look in your own backyard, they are full of runaways living on streets being sexually exploited, and full of homeless people freezing to death in subzero temperatures.</blockquote>
28.9% of children experiencing some form of sexual abuse in India and that gets much higher in individual states. Highest sexual abuse was reported in Assam (57.27%) followed by Delhi (41%), Andhra Pradesh (33.87%) and Bihar (33.27%). In Australia, 11% of women and 3.6% men. I think it's pretty clear which country has a bigger problem with sexual abuse.
Also people freezing to death? In Australia? Australia is a tropical country! Unless you're talking about Australian bases in Antartica, then I'm not sure what you're talking about. Australia is the driest inhabited continent in the entire world. It's 18% desert. 70% of it is either arid or semi arid land. Almost no inhabited area even approaches 0 degrees Celsius let alone subzero temperatures.
Citations:
https://www.indiatoday.in/education-today/featurephilia/story/child-sexual-abuse-in-india-alarming-statistics-lifelong-impact-how-to-heal-2416285-2023-08-04
https://journals.lww.com/ijmr/fulltext/2015/42010/child_sexual_abuse__issues___concerns.1.aspx#:~:text=The%20child%20sexual%20abuse%20is,some%20point%20of%20time1.
https://www.aihw.gov.au/family-domestic-and-sexual-violence/types-of-violence/child-sexual-abuse#how-many
Hmm. It is hard to say. Cotton Hill is given so much more screen time compared to to Butterscotch, the audience is given more time to develope hatred for him. Butterscotch is only prominently featured in 2 episodes of Bojack Horseman. Both bad husbands and fathers, both probably think that screws are "fancy jew nails" 😂
I can respect that.
... and still, better than Crash.
Even small scale period films tend to be more expensive than regular films with "spectacle".
Period films often require elaborate and historically accurate costumes even for the most irrelevant background extras, which can be expensive to design, create, and maintain.
Recreating historical settings or building elaborate sets from scratch can drive up production costs.
Authentic period props or replicas need to be sourced or created, which can be costly.
Researchers arent someone you need to consult with when filming a story within your own time period and culture, but historical films about the Osage probably require extensive consultation in order to be portrayed realistically and respectfully.
On top of it all, theres the already considerable cost of the cast particularly when hiring A-listers like De Niro. As others have already commented, Di Caprio was reportedly paid $40 million vs. Cillian Murphy's $10 million for Oppenheimer of which most of the cast took a pay cut. Then theres the crew, insurance, permits, marketing, post production etc. Film is just a costly medium.